Socio-Economic Status & Violence: The Distinct Correlation
Coumba Sy
New York University
College of Global Public Health
GPH GU 2140 Global Issues in Social and Behavioral Health
Introduction
Violence has been of the leading issues in public health for the past two decades. The issue of violence has been widely adopted by the public health community due to its correlation to the nation’s overall health status and quality of life. Once viewed as a problem for only the criminal justice system, violence is within the purview of many public health professionals. Violence is defined by the World Health Organization in the World Health Assembly Resolution (WRVH) as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation” (Krug et al., 2002). The definition of violence varies across different disciplines, and when being used in the field of public health the different definitions help identify the scope of health consequences and interventions to tackle violence. The WRVH divides violence into three categories according to who has committed the violence: self- directed, interpersonal or collective; and into four further categories according to the nature of violence: physical, sexual, psychological or involving deprivation or neglect (Krug et al., 2002).
Violence is known to occur at every level of socioeconomic status and numbers vary greatly. Violence has increasingly had a negative impact on education, employment, and those with low-income status. The occurrences of violence that can be linked to socioeconomic status may include: threats of violence, and physical and sexual violence. There are countless and numerous reasons as to why the social determinants of health contribute to the complexity of this health outcome. The high prevalence of violence can be the result of so many interrelated factors that it is often impossible to pinpoint one cause.
Income Status and Violence
Economic conditions are both causes and effects of violence. Poor people bear a disproportionate share of the public health burden of violence in almost every society. In addition, income inequality, in particular, is associated with national crime rates (Krug et al., 2002). For example, the rates of partner violence against women are 20 per 1,000 in households making less than $7,500 per year versus 3 per 1,000 for households making more than $75,000 per year (Rennison and Welchans, 2000). The same report shows violence against men at a virtually unchanged rate, with 2 per 1000 in the households making less than $7,500 per year compared to 1 per 1000 in households making more than $75,000 per year. These statistics show that violence in the varying socioeconomic groups is far more often committed by men and the rates increase as the household income is lower.
Race/Ethnicity and Violence
Statistics also show that violence varies widely between different racial groups. Blacks are 6 times more likely than Whites to die by homicide, a crime that is overwhelmingly interracial in nature (Sampson et al., 2005). Women in the African‐American and Native American communities are more likely to be victims of violence in the United States. In addition, Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of White females, and about 2 1⁄2 times the rate of women of other races (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). The odds of perpetrating violence were 85% higher for Blacks compared with Whites, whereas Latino‐perpetrated violence was 10% lower (Sampson et al., 2005). The higher rate of violence among African-Americans if often attributed to the prevalence of single-parent households and/or female headed families amongst the Black community (Sampson et al., 2005).
Educational Attainment and Violence
Education also plays a critical role in socioeconomic status and violence. The APA says, “Abused and neglected children showed significantly lower levels of academic attainment in adulthood” (American Psychological Association, 2011). This in turn will generally result in lower incomes, increasing the likelihood that they will be victims or perpetrators of violence in the future. There is an indirect correlation between educational attainment and arrest and incarceration rates, particularly among males, the report finds. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice (2018), 56 percent of federal inmates, 67 percent of inmates in state prisons, and 69 percent of inmates in local jails did not complete high school. Additionally, the number of incarcerated individuals without a high school diploma is increasing over time. Equity plays a large role in the connection between education level and crime rates; African Americans and Latinos are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
Discussion/Implications
Inequality between groups in society is an important risk factor for violence. Improving the status of women in general, including through enhancing access to education and reducing discrimination in the workforce, will in the long-term decrease women’s vulnerability to interpersonal violence and increase the avenues available for them to protect themselves from and respond to risk of attack. Whilst few studies have explored the sex- and age-specific correlations between violence and economic inequality, one recent study of homicide suggests that economic development, economic inequality and homicide rates in children and youths have complex relationships that are strongly mediated by the victim’s sex and age (Rutherford et al., 2007).
The theoretical basis for addressing violence is not nearly as well articulated with proven research. In public health, there have been many conceptual frameworks to figure the cause of violence but there are some limitations. According to Rutherford et al., 2007, the literature states: ‘‘While public health professionals may see the causal relationships between social factors and violence in populations, the toolbox from which we draw may limit us to interventions directed towards the agents of injury (such as firearms) and individual level variables such as knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Thus, in some sense the toolbox may define the mindset’’. Others argue that ‘‘the inclusion of injuries regardless of intent in surveillance systems, the commonality of the agencies carrying out prevention and the existence of risk factors which cut across intent argue strongly for the inclusion of intentional injuries within the scope of injury research and prevention’’ (Rutherford et al., 2007).
There is scope for many different segments of the public health community to engage more interactively in the prevention of violence and to add to the work being conducted in injury prevention: public mental health, community development, policy and management to name a few. Some of the disparities amongst this data still remain a puzzle because there is limited evidence that directly explains the differences in violence, amongst multiple socioeconomic factors. Although there are trends throughout literature that point towards a pattern in the most vulnerable populations and communities, there are also gaps where causality or order has not been established.
Conclusion
Defining the most appropriate roles for public health in the prevention of violence is a challenge. Traditionally the domain of the criminal justice system, violence has only recently attracted a multi-level approach. Public health professionals have a role in identifying and documenting the range of forms of violence that exists in communities. Identifying the determinants of these patterns and establishing the scope for intervention is critical as more knowledge about violence and its causes emerges, the public health field must seek to intervene with innovative solutions that increase policy makers’ confidence in, and understanding of, violence as a preventable problem.
References
American Psychological Association. Fact Sheet: Violence & Socioeconomic Status. APA.org.
Jewkes R. Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet 2002;359:1423–9.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet,360(9339), 1083-1088. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11133-0
Lustick, Ian & Cartrite, Britt & Derenzy Channer, Alex & Eidelson, Roy & Miodownik, Dan & Schilde, Kaija & Stohler, Stefan. (2009). Defining Violence: A Plausibility Probe Using Agent-Based Modeling (Corrected Version).
Rennison, Callie Marie, and Sarah Welchans. Intimate Partner Violence. Popcenter.org. Center
for Problem‐Oriented Policing, May 2000.
Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A priority for Public Health ? J Epidemiol Community Health,764-770. doi:doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049072
Runyan D, Wattam C, Ikeda R, et al. Child abuse and neglect by parents and other caregivers. In: Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J, et al, eds. World report on
Violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002:57–86.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenhoff, and Stephen Raudenbush. Social Anatomy of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Violence. American Journal of Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, Feb 2005.
Tjaden, Patricia and Thoennes, Nancy. Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner
Violence. Popcenter.org. Center for Problem‐Oriented Policing, July 2000.
Waters H, Hyder A, Rajkotia Y, et al. The economic dimensions of interpersonal violence. Geneva: Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention, World Health Organization, 2004.